This is copied from wikipedia because they explain it better than me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Plantinga.27s_modal_form_and_ contemporary_discussion)

NOTE: before jumping to the conclusion that it's "just the ontological argument", it is different.

1. say that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. say that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

This argument has two controversial premises: The axiom S5 and the "possibility premise" that a maximally great being is possible. The more controversial of these two is the "possibility premise" since S5 is widely (though not universally) accepted. One objection by Richard M. Gale, professor of philosophy at University of Pittsburgh, is that the "possibility premise" begs the question, because one only has the epistemic right to accept it if one understands the nested modal operators, and if one understands them then one understands that "possibly necessarily" is basically the same as "necessarily".[12] Plantinga replies to this objection as follows: "Once you see how the argument works, you may think that asserting or believing the premise is tantamount to asserting or believing the conclusion; the canny atheist will say that he does not believe it is possible that there be a maximally great being. But would not a similar criticism hold of any valid argument? Take any valid argument: once you see how it works, you may think that asserting or believing the premise is tantamount to asserting or believing the conclusion." To deny premise (3) amounts to asserting that it is logically impossible that there is a being the exemplifies maximal greatness — thus the argument appears to demonstrate that either the existence of God is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.

The argument seems highly suspicious to me, but I've not managed to formulate a refutation as satisfactory as I have for every other argument I've seen for the existence of God (except for the one in the PS, which just makes no sense to me).

PS, can anyone make sense of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God) argument? Am I just stupid or does it make no sense? It just seems really circular and stupid.

The argument has many flaws. The largest of the flaws is in #1.

The statement made should not be an "if and only if" statement. It might be true that if a being is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W, it has maximal excellence, but the reverse is not true. The world (W) has a finite number of people. Once you define maximal excellence, someone, somewhere will have maximal excellence. They will be more excellent than anyone else, even though they are not omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W.

The argument in the post script, so far as I can understand, is that without the Christian God, logic, mathematics, science, etc. are entirely useless and/or wouldn't exist.

Essentially, it's using the assumption that the Christian God is the one true God to prove it's own existence.

Here's my proof for a god: I Am. Yep, that's it. I am. Think on that through a strong head-trip and you'll figure it out.

I'm suspicious of this argument because it sound like a child wrote it, then a dog ate it, shat it and a dyslexic re-wrote it.
"Maximal excellence" what in the fuck is that? He's presented a formula and calls it an argument for god but the wording is so vague it's 'irrefutable'?
The 'argument' defines god as something that may feel perfectly inclined to do nothing, or in it's very nature is nothing, or is a salsbury steak.

Please prove me wrong, this is what I make of it.

1. Say a being has infinite scope in universe.
2. Say a being has infinite scope within infinite universe.
3. Infinity is pure possibility.
4. Therefore it may exist.
5. Therefore it must exist.

Couldn't you just replace 'god' with 'universe' and make the opposite argument?
At the end of the day, at least, the Christian god is often defined by the miracles against nature we see. And, we still see none.

So, we either have to scrap this argument or re-define god. Either one is fine with me.

There are no arguments for the existence of God. Where there is argument, there is strife, where there is strife, there is no God.

I don't see how something can be "possibly necessarily true." If its truth is necessary to this argument then that needs to be proven first. And if its truth is only a possibility then you can not extrapolate #5 from #4.

There are no arguments for the existence of God. Where there is argument, there is strife, where there is strife, there is no God.

why is that?

why is that?

Because God is always present, but to those who are in conflict with themselves, they will not see God, only strife.

Thoughts:

It is impossible for some things to be a logical necessity in our current system of logic, for if it was possible that they be necessities, by Axiom S5 they would be. Example: It cannot be a possible necessity that my alarm clock go off three seconds from now, because (1... 2... 3...) it has not gone off. Therefore, any world in which my alarm clock going off at that time would be a possible necessity would use a different system of logic and logical necessity than this one does, and therefore what applies in it would not apply in ours. Therefore we can only know what is a possible necessity and what isn't by its existence or lack thereof, meaning that we must rely on the evidence of the senses (for how else to tell what exists) once again. God is once again relegated to a mere possibility for which there is no evidence (as of yet). Interestingly, Plantinga also holds that his argument does not prove that God exists but merely that it is rational to think so.

Just noticed something else:
To deny premise (3) amounts to asserting that it is logically impossible that there is a being the exemplifies maximal greatness — thus the argument appears to demonstrate that either the existence of God is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
I have held that the existence of God is logically impossible for a while now (by the argument of omnipotence: can God lift a rock so big etc).

***

Below is the stuff I wrote yesterday. I don't want to delete it, but I don't think it's as clear as the above stuff, so I've made them switch places.

Yesterday

4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists
This is the part I don't like. It is possible that an OOAPFB exists, but unless we're missing something (which is possible) it is not necessarily existent; that is, as far as we're aware it is impossible for it to be necessarily existent, unless the other worlds we're considering use a different system entirely (and that would mean that S5 isn't valid).

In addition, why are we bringing other worlds into it at all? S5 seems to say to me that "if it could be possible anywhere, even in a fantasy world populated by your own mind, it's possible everywhere."

Finally, wouldn't this work for anything? It's possibly* necessary that there is a Giant Pumpkin Lord and we just don't know it (that is, that it's necessary). I believe the flaw lies in the final sentence of S5:
But if something is self-contradictory at some possible world, then it is self-contradictory at all worlds
Seeing as these are possible worlds existing only in the imagination and embodying various concepts differing from those in our world, it makes no sense to me that what applies to one applies to the rest.

*"Possibly" meaning that it's impossible to prove the opposite.

I don't know. I'm sleepy. I'll give it another look-over tomorrow.

Semantics:
1. W = world;ME = Maximal Excellence;
O = omnipotent, omniscient, good;
if(x==O) then
{x = ME;
f(x) = lim(0->x) W}
2. MG = Maximal Greatness
W = {0,1,2,..., n}
if(W=={ME,ME,ME,...,ME})
{ME = MG}
3. if(MG)
4. then
{
if([f(ME) = lim(0->ME)W] == true)}
5. Axiom S5 "if possibly necessarily p then necessarily p"
=>
randomly initiate x;
sdef = specific definition;
if(x==sdef) then
{conditional(x==sdef) = true}
=>
if([f(ME) = lim(0->ME)W]) then
{f(ME) = lim(0->ME) W}
**looks like circular logic**
6. O

OR...

Syntax:
if (possible MG) then{
if(possible O==necessarily true)then{
if(O==necessarily true)then{
O=true}}}

Syntax of S5:

if (possibly necessarily true) then{necessarily true}

if (possibly true) then{necessarily possibly true}

By syntax alone, this statement passes. However, semantically it is using a double nested statement of circular logic that has a final condition that is different from the initial condition. Semantically it is wrong.

Please feel free to tell me where I am wrong in interpreting what I have read from the link. I await Rust to come in here, semantic guns blazing, taring everyone new assholes.

If God exists then why hasn't the Hubble space telescope taken a picture of him?

If God exists then why hasn't the Hubble space telescope taken a picture of him?

They have.

They have.


It was only God's eye. ;)

**looks like circular logic**
Fool, /** is the comment tag!

In addition, why are we bringing other worlds into it at all? S5 seems to say to me that "if it could be possible anywhere, even in a fantasy world populated by your own mind, it's possible everywhere."


They are brought 'into it' because modal logic deals with the concept of "worlds"

Also, that's not what Axiom S5 is saying.

In modal logic, then they say "possible" they mean "true in at least one world" (true in world W lets say). When they say "necessarily" they mean that it exists in all worlds.

So Axiom S5 (if possibly necessarily p, then necessarily p) is saying is: if p must be true for all worlds (i.e. it is necessarily true) and we find p to be true in world A (i.e. possibly true), then we've proven p to be true in all other worlds.

That's not to say that anything that is true in one world is true in others; only those things that are defined in such a way that if they are true they must be true everywhere else as well.

-----------------

As for the argument itself, here's a refutation:

http://www.paul-almond.com/ModalOntologicalArgument.pdf

The problem with the argument (as they outline in the link above) is that we can exchange "exists" with "doesn't exist" and effectively prove that god doesn't exist.

If we define p such that it must be false in all worlds (i.e necessarily false) and we find p to be false in world A (i.e. possibly false), then we've proven p to be false in all other worlds.


"By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (Premise)
Possibly a maximally great being does not exist. (Premise)
Therefore, possibly an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being that, if it exists, exists necessarily, does not exist. (By 1 and 2)
Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (By 3 and Anti-S5)
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true)"

Rust, for the win.

It breaks down to whether or not you find a contradiction in the very system we use to determine degrees of certainty as reason to doubt or reason to believe.

Basically, all effects have a cause...so then, what caused a god/universe? We can either conclude that existence doesn't exist (contradiction), or that all effects don't necessitate a cause (contradiction), or that no initial cause is necessary (contradiction: conclusions rest upon premises)

It's a bit more complicated than that, but we just can't HONESTLY be certain as to whether or not a god exists.

They are brought 'into it' because modal logic deals with the concept of "worlds"
I am embarrassed by that comment. I should've deleted it completely.


-----------------

As for the argument itself, here's a refutation:

http://www.paul-almond.com/ModalOntologicalArgument.pdf

The problem with the argument (as they outline in the link above) is that we can exchange "exists" with "doesn't exist" and effectively prove that god doesn't exist.

If we define p such that it must be false in all worlds (i.e necessarily false) and we find p to be false in world A (i.e. possibly false), then we've proven p to be false in all other worlds.


"By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (Premise)
Possibly a maximally great being does not exist. (Premise)
Therefore, possibly an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being that, if it exists, exists necessarily, does not exist. (By 1 and 2)
Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (By 3 and Anti-S5)
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true)"
What is the underlying problem, though? A counterexample refutes it, but if we're using the same argument to prove contradictory conclusions there must be something wrong with it, no?

Premise 1 - a definition of maximally great being (if omniscient etc., proven existence in one world proves existence in all words)

Premise 2 - A maximally great being possibly exists. (Unproven - possibly, if I gather correctly, means that it is proven in a single world...this premise follows the first conclusion and is thus circular)

Hope I got that right for ya Twisted.

Whenever I come across this one, can't you just replace the "maximally great" with "maximally gay" or "maximally a wanker"?

Because God is always present, but to those who are in conflict with themselves, they will not see God, only strife.

You're implanting an assumption, that one mustn't be in strife to see god.

It's like saying about a blue wall, "Yes, it is always red, but to see that it's red you mustn't contemplate that it is blue, or any other colour. Only red.

What is the underlying problem, though? A counterexample refutes it, but if we're using the same argument to prove contradictory conclusions there must be something wrong with it, no?

The problem lies in the way they are defining god coupled with their premises.

If you define something in such a way that if it possibly exists then it must necessarilly exist (i.e. if it exists in one world then it must exist in all other worlds) and you then assume it possibly exists, then you're actually assuming it necessarilly exists by default. That's circular logic.

Well the man who made the argument actually responded to the circular logic claim. I'm not saying he's right, but his reply is in this quote from wikipedia.

This argument has two controversial premises: The axiom S5 and the "possibility premise" that a maximally great being is possible. The more controversial of these two is the "possibility premise" since S5 is widely (though not universally) accepted. One objection by Richard M. Gale, professor of philosophy at University of Pittsburgh, is that the "possibility premise" begs the question, because one only has the epistemic right to accept it if one understands the nested modal operators, and if one understands them then one understands that "possibly necessarily" is basically the same as "necessarily".[12] Plantinga replies to this objection as follows: "Once you see how the argument works, you may think that asserting or believing the premise is tantamount to asserting or believing the conclusion; the canny atheist will say that he does not believe it is possible that there be a maximally great being. But would not a similar criticism hold of any valid argument? Take any valid argument: once you see how it works, you may think that asserting or believing the premise is tantamount to asserting or believing the conclusion." To deny premise (3) amounts to asserting that it is logically impossible that there is a being the exemplifies maximal greatness — thus the argument appears to demonstrate that either the existence of God is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.

Thus it leads to the argument you proposed, where you can just reverse it and claim God doesn't exist, right?

Well, his reply doesn't refute the accusation of circular logic so it's a meaningless statement.

He is making it seem as if we were claiming circular logic just because the argument reaches a certain conclusion -- that isn't the case at all. It's the fact that his definition of god makes it so that assuming he possibly exists automatically means he necessarily exists that makes it circular logic.

Not to mention that we can just deny the idea of a god (as he defines it) possibly existing.

Not to mention that we can just deny the idea of a god (as he defines it) possibly existing.
That's what I was thinking... it's not even possibly existent, perhaps.

Thanks for clearing up the above issue :) You as well, Hexadecimal. Hey, I don't think I ever finished that e-mail to you...

Nope, it's all right though. I'm a fucking head case, so I figured I probably scurred ya off. :D

There are no arguments for the existence of God. Where there is argument, there is strife, where there is strife, there is no God.

Shut up you fucking hippy.

Nah, I agree with Rizzo...

My own way of saying it would probably be -- God exist... because logic fails!

But then I dunno if I even believe that... well, I certainly don't believe logic can ever answer any "higher" truths...

Arguments lacking God though... that's pretty convincing, I mean come on, it's the whole idea of some arrogant tit going "LOL NOW IVE PRUVED IT 2U N GOD DOES EXIST, HA!" that just makes the existence of God in that context so... lacking? God's in the rain, yo.

the only argument I like is Pascal's wager

Lay off the weed, Mellow_Fellow.

the only argument I like is Pascal's wager

Why? It totally fails.

Nah, I agree with Rizzo...

My own way of saying it would probably be -- God exist... because logic fails!

But then I dunno if I even believe that... well, I certainly don't believe logic can ever answer any "higher" truths...

Arguments lacking God though... that's pretty convincing, I mean come on, it's the whole idea of some arrogant tit going "LOL NOW IVE PRUVED IT 2U N GOD DOES EXIST, HA!" that just makes the existence of God in that context so... lacking? God's in the rain, yo.

Fucking word.

If we take a realistic look at what God might be, it is logical to assume that God cannot be proven logically. I'm not talking about some Zeus like figure that sits on a cloud and plays games with people like telling them sex is bad, but I will give you primal urges to want to do it. I'm talking about an actual entity that is capable of creating existence.

For something to even create existence, they must be above and outside of it, assuming the laws of created and creator are universal. Logic, as we understand it, is only limited to existence. For example, paranormal stuff is taken to be illogical. So based on the assumption that God follows His own laws in creation, there seems to be some merit in saying that God cannot be proven logically.

There is probably some better way to explain this. I'm just not that articulate.

Great, so what you've got there is, once again, a non-falsifiable entity that cannot be proven to exist and that we have no evidence for.

Great, so what you've got there is, once again, a non-falsifiable entity that cannot be proven to exist and that we have no evidence for.

... based on an assumption. Well, the whole thing is an assumption. It's just whether or not an individual can take an assumption and believe it to be fact or needs to have evidence to conclude it is a fact.

I've always thought the two sides of this to be:
A human can't comprehend just not thinking or the termination of awareness. So to avoid such a thing, there is an afterlife where one's awareness continues on made possible by some being that created life, afterlife and everything. One thing that keeps everything cohesive.
A human can't comprehend just believing in something without an actual proof to say that it even exists. Personal knowledge of what is right and what is wrong would say that something that is only known by word without being proven by any of the 5 senses is wrong.In the end its just us little chimpanzees trying to argue with each other out of fear. Another primal emotion we try to suppress and disguise as an argue of logic and faith. Seriously, lets be realistic, theists are afraid of going to some kind of hell or receiving some kind of divine punishment for not believing. Non-theists are afraid of the theists taking over and dictating/legislating based on some kind of thing that can't be proven. Although this argument is in the guise of the progression or regression of mankind's state of mind, it really is about us just being afraid of one another. We're just primitive little animals.

Atheists are the most religious people I know. I don't even talk about God this much.

Atheists are the most religious people I know. I don't even talk about God this much.

Its because they try SO HARD to prove that God doesnt exist.

What they fail to realize is it doesnt matter, because in trying to prove that God doesnt exist, they prove that they cannot prove it, thereby keeping open the possibility that God does exist.

This goes for christians too. In trying to prove that he does exist, they prove that they cannot prove it, thereby keeping open the possibility that he does not exist.

No one will ever win this debate because no one can ever disprove the other side.

Ambiguity FTW!

It's called non-falsifiability, which is why I'm an agnostic-atheist. But the burden of proof isn't on atheists, it's on those making a positive statement and time and time again they have failed.

Also, I've slowly been growing bored with My God. It's only been the posts on religious texts by people like Jackketch that have kept me here because of my interest in history, culture, genealogy and philosophy.

I have an uncle and a cousin who I only found out were atheists because someone asked them. They don't even think about religion. To them it's a non-question. So it's very nice of you to give sweeping statements that all atheists are the most religious people you know, Rizzo (yes, I can see your posts when other people quote them, ya big goof).

It's called non-falsifiability, which is why I'm an agnostic-atheist. But the burden of proof isn't on atheists, it's on those making a positive statement and time and time again they have failed.

Also, I've slowly been growing bored with My God. It's only been the posts on religious texts by people like Jackketch that have kept me here because of my interest in history, culture, genealogy and philosophy.

I have an uncle and a cousin who I only found out were atheists because someone asked them. They don't even think about religion. To them it's a non-question. So it's very nice of you to give sweeping statements that all atheists are the most religious people you know, Rizzo (yes, I can see your posts when other people quote them, ya big goof).

The burden of proof is on both, not just one.

Both make unverifiable claims, both should have to back up their claims.

I dont see how claiming something doesnt exist alleviates athiests from having to prove their statement.

If I make a statement saying something is true, I should have to back that up. If you make a statement saying the same thing is false, you should have to back it up as well.

I didn't know any of this was a burden. I thought it was a game.

fuck.

so much for "jeopardy".

The burden of proof is on both, not just one.

Both make unverifiable claims, both should have to back up their claims.

I dont see how claiming something doesnt exist alleviates athiests from having to prove their statement.

If I make a statement saying something is true, I should have to back that up. If you make a statement saying the same thing is false, you should have to back it up as well.

On contraire, there's two type of atheists: weak atheists and strong atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism). Weak atheists state they won't believe until there is evidence but admit it is impossible to know either way, which is very scientific and therefore burden of proof is not on them, it's strong atheists who are the ones that make absolutes.

I'm a weak atheist. I don't believe there is a God and I won't until I've seen convincing evidence. All evidence I've seen has been terrible.

Au contraire
Fixed?

On contraire, there's two type of atheists: weak atheists and strong atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism). Weak atheists state they won't believe until there is evidence but admit it is impossible to know either way, which is very scientific and therefore burden of proof is not on them, it's strong atheists who are the ones that make absolutes.

I'm a weak atheist. I don't believe there is a God and I won't until I've seen convincing evidence. All evidence I've seen has been terrible.

Is that the evidences' fault, or your own?

I'm also a weak athiest. Saying that it there absolutely is no god is almost as bad as saying there is one. ALMOST, because it's better to absolutely not believe in things that there is no evidence for than it is to believe in them.

I'm also a weak athiest. Saying that it there absolutely is no god is almost as bad as saying there is one. ALMOST, because it's better to absolutely not believe in things that there is no evidence for than it is to believe in them.

Exactly. The ontological argument and all its divergent forms, Pascal’s wager, Aquinas’s five proofs, William Paley’s watchmaker analogy, the moral argument, the transcendental argument for the existence of God, and arguing that emotion and ethics make no sense without God have all failed time and time again. This, combined with the fact that all religious texts that claim there is a God have questionable origins, history and lack of evidence, makes me think there is no point in believing.

I'm also a weak athiest. Saying that it there absolutely is no god is almost as bad as saying there is one. ALMOST, because it's better to absolutely not believe in things that there is no evidence for than it is to believe in them.

So where do Weak Atheists draw the line between Atheist and Agnostic?

So where do Weak Atheists draw the line between Atheist and Agnostic?

In my opinion "agnosticism" is stating you don't know whether or not there is a God and that's it, while "strong atheism" is stating that you knowabsolutely that there is no God and "weak atheism", or "agnostic-atheism", is stating you don't know whether or not there is a God, but you believe there is no God until someone provides convincing evidence (something I don't believe there is).

It's more than just your opinion, that's precisely how the fucking word was originally defined.

It's more than just your opinion, that's precisely how the fucking word was originally defined.


:eek:

So where do Weak Atheists draw the line between Atheist and Agnostic?
An "atheist" is simply not a theist. Literally: "a" a Greek prefix meaning "not", "theist" meaning, well, theist. Agnosticism, however, originally defined a position that held that all human knowledge was fallible; it didn't have more to do with God than it did with any other bit of knowledge. "A", not, "gnosis", knowledge.